A LOOK AHEAD * Schools in the Valley and Westside are getting more Prop. BB money than campuses on the Eastside and South-Central, analysis shows. But because spending during the previous 10 years followed an opposite pattern, where the funds go is . . . : A Complex Subject of Equity

Despite a something-for-everyone philosophy that went into a list of 11,000 individual contracts for Proposition BB repairs, some schools, and some parts of town, will be getting much more than others.

Half of the $2.4-billion bond measure has been set aside for repairs and improvements to make up for decades of neglected maintenance. But a Times computer analysis found distinct inequities.

Start with Birmingham High School, the sprawling campus in the San Fernando Valley’s suburban heart. Its $7.8-million contract includes one stunning item: $355,700 to repair a swimming pool filtration system.

By contrast, Huntington Park High School, a tight complex of three-story buildings, some old, some new, will get less than half as much as Birmingham. Its most luxurious item is the restoration of a long-discarded reflecting pool, the largest body of water the campus has room for--when its dirt track isn’t mired in rainwater.

Birmingham, by contrast, has an all-weather track donated by the 1984 U.S. Olympic committee.

The fact that Birmingham received 75% more funds than Huntington Park, based on the ratio of dollars to square feet of building space, reflects pervasive geographical imbalances in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s spending plan.

The Times analysis of Proposition BB contracts shows that the money is going disproportionately to the San Fernando Valley and Westside. The Eastside and South-Central Los Angeles are getting less, with the smallest amounts going to the schools just west of downtown and in the small cities in the southeast area.

But the analysis, followed by visits to more than 25 schools at the high and low ends of the funding spectrum, also shows that equity is not nearly as simple as it seems.

Spending on school facilities during the 10 years before Proposition BB followed almost exactly the opposite pattern, with the least money going to the Valley and Westside, and the most to the central, south and east city areas.

In that sense, Proposition BB money is compensating for past inequities.

Even so, it is clear that in many ways the new funds are perpetuating disparities that have resisted efforts to correct them.

In general, The Times analysis shows, schools that have more--larger campuses, better facilities and more elaborate amenities--receive more Proposition BB funds.

Conversely, because the funds are geared toward bringing all schools up to the same minimum standards of health and safety--not overall equality--the money does little to correct glaring deficiencies in nonessentials such as playground space, bathrooms and auditorium seating, which have divided campuses into haves and have-nots for years.

*

Consider the $187 million budgeted for playground resurfacing, one of the big-ticket Proposition BB items.

Across the district, larger than average schools--those with 35 or more classrooms--are receiving much less of the pie for asphalt than smaller schools. The reason: They have less to replace. Much of their playground space has been used for portable classrooms. In many cases, a portion of these schools’ funds is paying to have more portable classrooms added, further reducing playground space.

The question of equity has become a major theme of the volunteer oversight committee established by voters as a part of the bond measure.

Although the committee has often been fiercely critical of the school district’s use of the funds, its members generally reject the notion that there has been a conscious effort to steer more money to one part of the district.

“Did they sit in a smoke-filled room and say, ‘Here’s where the votes are, let’s give them some money? I just don’t see it,” said committee Chairman Steven Soboroff.

However, committee members remain concerned over the vagaries of Proposition BB spending, particularly at the high school level.

The most extreme cases are stunning.

For example, South L.A.’s Fremont High School. Though it is 64 years old and received relatively little maintenance over the past 10 years, it falls near the bottom of the list, with about $13.72 per square foot of building space--only a third as much as schools at the top of the list.

The equity question came to the attention of the oversight committee in recent months after a South Los Angeles youth group began protesting that schools in older, poorer sections of the city were receiving less than their fair share.

Although not endorsing the claim of geographical inequity, committee members were deeply affected by the group’s appeal, supported by photos of dilapidated bathrooms and falling ceiling tiles at schools such as Fremont.

Committee member Timothy Lynch, Los Angeles’ deputy city controller, suggested that part of the problem lay in the assertiveness of school principals.

“You get the feeling that principals have a lot of say on what they get on their own campuses,” he said.

In drawing up the list of nearly 11,000 repair jobs, downtown district administrators asked principals to come up with wish lists of their school needs. These were added to deferred maintenance requests and some items that the Board of Education decided every school should have, such as Internet connections and intercoms.

It was clear from more than two dozen principals interviewed by The Times that some were more aware of the needs of their campus facilities than others. In addition, some felt constrained in asking for more money because they were already receiving a lot. Many, imbued with a team spirit, considered their campuses less needy than others.

“I went through things that are really important to make the school safe,” said Lupe Simpson, principal of Nimitz Middle School in Huntington Park, the community that is receiving the least money in repair funds. “I got pretty much what I wanted. I’m not going to be greedy.”

But she also said that the school, which has expanded with portables, needs more bathrooms, a frequent complaint.

The school district did not set districtwide standards in each maintenance and repair category, which Lynch considers critical.

“There ought to be a council of principals that would meet and talk about standards districtwide,” he said.

District officials who constructed the spending list practically shudder at such a suggestion, viewing it as a Pandora’s box that could raise costs millions of dollars beyond what the bond allows, and would invariably churn up painful and insoluble grievances about the haves and have-nots.

Once such a door is open, almost every school can come up with something it needs, like more storage space.

The historically overcrowded and year-round schools stand out as particularly short-changed. Consider, for example:

* Elizabeth Learning Center in Cudahy, once a small elementary school. It got a complex of new buildings when it converted five years ago to an experimental program for kindergarten through 12th grade. But the money ran out before the job was done, and now its 3,000 students use a cafeteria built for 400.

* Middleton Elementary School in Huntington Park, which, with 1,800 students, has sprawled to include all of a city block except for a dreary apartment building looming over one side of its playground. The school’s principal would like to condemn the site.

* Gage Middle School, also in Huntington Park, which recently got a thorough renovation with state modernization funds, but still doesn’t have an auditorium. Assemblies are held in the gym, which is frequently out of action for athletics because the gym floor is filled with folding chairs.

“Our need is land. We need land. We need space,” said Middleton Principal Roberta Benjamin, repeating an oft-heard plea. “That is not BB.”

Administrators of the three schools said they did not think these items were eligible under the health-and-safety criteria of the bond measure, and so did not include them on their list of requests.

Conceivably such projects could qualify for funding with the other main component of the measure, a $900-million fund devoted to construction. But that fund is already overcommitted for new schools needed to relieve overcrowding.

“This is where hard decisions have to be made by the Board of Education,” said Beth Louargand, director of the district’s facilities services division.

One of the nagging problems with BB has been the absence of a district facilities plan showing exactly which new schools will be built, when they will be built and how much they will cost. The plan is due to be submitted to the school board in April.

In a preview of that plan given to the board earlier, district officials identified a need for eight new high schools and dozens of elementary schools.

However, the plan does not contemplate building enough schools to house students now squeezed into thousands of portables taking up playground space. In some cases, the plan would solve overcrowding by adding more portables or permanent facilities, said Roger Rasmussen, head of the school district’s Independent Analysis Unit.

Rasmussen said the plan will address amenities such as worn-out or inadequate gyms and auditoriums, but “I don’t think there will be enough money to meet every need in that area.”

The prospect that funds will probably run out without achieving significant parity across the district’s 660 campuses has become almost an obsession for the oversight committee, and especially its chairman, Soboroff.

The committee has called for all school principals to reexamine their contracts and ask for any improvements they think are missing.

So far, about 300 requests for additional work have come in. District officials have declined to make them public, characterizing them as working documents excluded from public disclosure.

Meanwhile, Soboroff has gone on the stump around the city trying to stir up even more requests.

He says he is convinced that the “squeaky wheel” syndrome guided the budgeting process, with many principals acting aggressively in defining their needs while others were modest.

Now he’s asking every principal to be a squeaky wheel. He has suggested that they ask for gyms, auditoriums and playground space along with the nitty-gritty items such as repairs to leaky roofing and clogged pipes, conceding that the price tag will soar well above the allocated bond funds.

A sample of what to expect comes from Fremont, whose principal took Soboroff seriously and drew up a new list of needs including gym and library renovations, new security lighting, bathrooms for recently installed bungalows, new water fountains and an underground or multilevel parking structure.

Concedes Soboroff: “If you have everybody’s wish list, we can’t do everything. But I would like to see everyone’s wish list. Some may be pushing the envelope as less qualified.

“At least I want to know.”